C V RAJENDRAN Vs. N M MUHAMMED KUNHI
LAWS(SC)-2002-9-12
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: KERALA)
Decided on
September 13,2002
C.V.RAJENDRAN
Appellant
VERSUS
N.M.MUHAMMED KUNHI
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
SATYADHYAN GHOSAL VS. DEORAJIN DEBI [REFERRED]HOPE PLANTATIONS VS. LTD [REFERRED]
Cited Judgements :-
SHRI AJOY KUMAR DAS, SON OF LATE ARINI MOHAN DAS, RESIDENT OF RATIABARI VS. SHRI CHANCHAL KUMAR DAS, SON OF LATE PRAMESH CHANDRA DAS @ RAMESH CHANDRA [LAWS(TRIP)-2016-6-22] [REFERRED TO]NAWAB SHAQAFATH ALI KHAN VS. NAWAB IMDAD JAH BAHADUR [LAWS(SC)-2009-3-73] [REFERRED TO]
RAJASTHAN FINANCIAL CORPORATION VS. MAN INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION LIMITED [LAWS(SC)-2003-8-106] [REFERRED]
BANO BEE VS. MAMMU KHA & ORS. [LAWS(MPH)-2018-7-308] [REFERRED TO]
D.N. MANGALA W/O SATHISH VS. SUNANDA W/O D.C. NANJUNDAIAH AND OTHERS [LAWS(KAR)-2018-1-422] [REFERRED TO]
KUNNATH CHELLAPPAN NAIR VS. VENKITADARI [LAWS(KER)-2006-10-22] [REFERRED TO]
VAIDYA K G BARASKAR VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2009-5-15] [REFERRED TO]
SARIKA AKSHAY RANADE VS. AKSHAY ARUN RANADE [LAWS(BOM)-2021-4-64] [REFERRED TO]
DR.AKSHAY ARUN RANADE VS. DR.MRS.SARIKA AKSHAY RANADE [LAWS(BOM)-2021-6-40] [REFERRED TO]
MATHEW VS. RAJAN [LAWS(KER)-2016-1-65] [REFERRED TO]
MALLIKA VS. SREE MUTHARAMMAN TEMPLE TRUST [LAWS(KER)-2023-10-3] [REFERRED TO]
JAVED REHMAN VOHRA VS. K R JAYRAM [LAWS(CAL)-2016-8-155] [REFERRED]
OMBIR VS. DY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION [LAWS(ALL)-2013-12-78] [REFERRED TO]
VIJAYA VIJAYRAO KHADKE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2022-6-9] [REFERRED TO]
Gurumani Vinayagar Temple AND Kannanur Mariamman Temple VS. Somu [LAWS(MAD)-2005-3-92] [REFERRED TO]
COASTAL GUJARAT POWER LIMITED VS. GUJARAT URJA VIKAS NIGAM LIMITED AND ORS. [LAWS(APTE)-2014-2-30] [REFERRED TO]
JASWANT SINGH VS. ABDUL KAYUM KHAN (DIED) DELETED [LAWS(RAJ)-2017-4-80] [REFERRED TO]
PRITHVIVALLABH VS. CHANDRAKISHORE VYAS [LAWS(MPH)-2011-1-76] [REFERRED TO]
B SHARADAMMA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2009-7-39] [REFERRED TO]
TATA COMMUNICATIONS LTD , THROUGH ITS ASSISTANT MANAGER (HR) V GEETHA VS. TELECOM REGULATORY AUTHORITY OF INDIA [LAWS(MAD)-2018-7-25] [REFERRED TO]
BHARATHI VS. VINOD S SIVASUDHA [LAWS(KER)-2007-10-7] [REFERRED TO]
GIRIJA AND ORS. VS. RAJAN AND ORS. [LAWS(KER)-2015-1-85] [REFERRED TO]
NAYNABA JAGATSINH JADEJA AND ORS. VS. DRIVER OF TRUCK NO. GQY-4559 AND ORS. [LAWS(GJH)-2019-12-359] [REFERRED TO]
MATTAPARTHI SATYANARAYANA VS. BHAVANA SESHAGIRI RAO [LAWS(APH)-2005-3-6] [REFERRED TO]
AJAY MOHAN VS. H N RAI [LAWS(SC)-2007-12-33] [REFERRED TO]
KARUPPASAMY VS. SUMATHI [LAWS(MAD)-2023-6-6] [REFERRED TO]
MULLA MABU VS. M LAKSHMI DEVI [LAWS(APH)-2022-8-42] [REFERRED TO]
DR.MRS.SARIKA AKSHAY RANADE VS. DR.AKSHAY ARUN RANADE [LAWS(BOM)-2021-4-7] [REFERRED TO]
R. VENKATACHALAM AND ORS. VS. S.R. LAKSHMANAN AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-2015-6-241] [REFERRED TO]
RAJWANT SINGH VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2007-10-76] [REFERRED TO]
BAHAR MIAH (MD.) & ORS. VS. MANU MIAH (MD.)& ORS. [LAWS(GAU)-2012-8-100] [REFERRED TO]
DECCAN CHRONICLES HOLDINGS LIMITED VS. THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL [LAWS(APH)-2014-8-77] [REFERRED TO]
AYANIKKATTU UNNIRAJA VS. K.P. GURUDAS [LAWS(KER)-2014-1-56] [REFERRED TO - SC)]
N JAGANNATHA REDDY VS. VENKATAMMA [LAWS(KAR)-2017-11-164] [REFERRED TO]
NATESAN VS. RAJENDRAN [LAWS(MAD)-2013-1-497] [REFERRED TO]
SHWAS HOMES PRIVATE LTD. VS. MOON WATERS OWNERS ASSO. [LAWS(KER)-2023-5-156] [REFERRED TO]
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD VS. SHRI MAHENDRA GAUR [LAWS(RAJ)-2010-12-6] [REFERRED TO]
STATE VS. M/S. EMAAR MGF. LAND LTD. ECE HOUSE, 28, KASTURBA GANDHI MARG, NEW DELHI [LAWS(NCD)-2016-5-197] [REFERRED TO]
RAFIQUDDIN AHMED (MD.) AND ORS. VS. STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS. [LAWS(GAU)-2015-11-33] [REFERRED TO]
DR. PRASHANT VS. HONOURABLE CHANCELLOR [LAWS(BOM)-2022-11-36] [REFERRED TO]
ERACH BOMAN KHAVAR VS. TUKARAM SHRIDHAR BHAT [LAWS(SC)-2013-12-28] [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRASEKHARA PRABHU A. VS. VADAKKE PARAMMAL KUNHIMOIDEEN [LAWS(KER)-2008-7-102] [REFERRED TO]
NARENDRA KUMAR VS. MAYA ALIAS NIRMALA [LAWS(RAJ)-2006-11-61] [REFERRED TO]
NEK RAM VS. BHARAT BHUSHAN [LAWS(J&K)-2011-2-20] [REFERRED TO]
RADHA RAMAN PANDEY VS. JAGAT MOHAN [LAWS(ALL)-2006-7-69] [REFERRED TO]
LALTA PRASAD VS. IST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE JUDGE SMALL CAUSES COURT ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE [LAWS(ALL)-2005-11-58] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)Leave is granted.
(2.)The short point that arises for consideration in this appeal is : whether the order of remand passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Payyannur, dated November 25, 1988, holding that the second eviction petition (R.C.P. No. 13/87) filed by the respondent against the appellants under sub-section (3) of S. 11 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short, 'the Act'), is not barred by S. 15 of the Act, can be permitted to be reagitated in proceeding arising from the order passed by the Rent Controller pursuant to the order of remand.
(3.)The appellants are the tenants of the petition schedule building of which the respondent is the landlord. In the first round of litigation between the parties for eviction of the appellants from the schedule building, it was held that the requirement of the son of the respondent was bona fide but eventually the order of eviction could not be passed on the ground that no alternative accommodation was available for the appellants in the locality. The respondent, thereafter, initiated the proceedings for eviction of the appellants, out of which this appeal arises, on the ground of his bona fide requirement. The learned Rent Controller declined relief to the respondent on the ground that under S. 15(3) of the Act the eviction petition was not maintainable. On November 25, 1988, the appellate authority allowed the appeal of the respondent holding that the eviction petition was maintainable and remanded the case to the Rent Controller for fresh disposal on merits in accordance with law, which became final as that order was confirmed in R.C.R.P. No. 42/89 by the District Judge, Thalassery, on December 3, 1990. After remand, the learned Rent Controller found that the need of the respondent was bona fide, and alternative accommodation in the area was available, so allowed the eviction petition on September 25, 1991 which was confirmed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Thalassery, in Rent Control Appeal No. 193 of 1991 on August 3, 1992. In Civil Revision Petition No. 2147 of 1992, filed by the appellants herein before the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam, against the said order of the appellate authority, it was held that the earlier order of the appellate authority holding that S. 15 of the Act does not bar the eviction proceedings against the appellants, had become final and cannot be reagitated afresh. However, the High Court also recorded the finding that S. 15 of the Act did not bar the subsequent eviction petition. In that view of the matter, the civil revision petition was dismissed by the High Court on July 6, 2002. That order of the High Court is appealed against before this Court, by special leave.
(2.)The short point that arises for consideration in this appeal is : whether the order of remand passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Payyannur, dated November 25, 1988, holding that the second eviction petition (R.C.P. No. 13/87) filed by the respondent against the appellants under sub-section (3) of S. 11 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short, 'the Act'), is not barred by S. 15 of the Act, can be permitted to be reagitated in proceeding arising from the order passed by the Rent Controller pursuant to the order of remand.
(3.)The appellants are the tenants of the petition schedule building of which the respondent is the landlord. In the first round of litigation between the parties for eviction of the appellants from the schedule building, it was held that the requirement of the son of the respondent was bona fide but eventually the order of eviction could not be passed on the ground that no alternative accommodation was available for the appellants in the locality. The respondent, thereafter, initiated the proceedings for eviction of the appellants, out of which this appeal arises, on the ground of his bona fide requirement. The learned Rent Controller declined relief to the respondent on the ground that under S. 15(3) of the Act the eviction petition was not maintainable. On November 25, 1988, the appellate authority allowed the appeal of the respondent holding that the eviction petition was maintainable and remanded the case to the Rent Controller for fresh disposal on merits in accordance with law, which became final as that order was confirmed in R.C.R.P. No. 42/89 by the District Judge, Thalassery, on December 3, 1990. After remand, the learned Rent Controller found that the need of the respondent was bona fide, and alternative accommodation in the area was available, so allowed the eviction petition on September 25, 1991 which was confirmed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Thalassery, in Rent Control Appeal No. 193 of 1991 on August 3, 1992. In Civil Revision Petition No. 2147 of 1992, filed by the appellants herein before the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam, against the said order of the appellate authority, it was held that the earlier order of the appellate authority holding that S. 15 of the Act does not bar the eviction proceedings against the appellants, had become final and cannot be reagitated afresh. However, the High Court also recorded the finding that S. 15 of the Act did not bar the subsequent eviction petition. In that view of the matter, the civil revision petition was dismissed by the High Court on July 6, 2002. That order of the High Court is appealed against before this Court, by special leave.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.